|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Aion or Aionios??? - 12/1/2008 7:41:52 PM
|
|
|
rrtt11
Posts: 67
Joined: 6/7/2005
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
|
I found several websites claiming that "forever and ever" in the bible are not the correct translation of aion or aionios but that they always refer to a finite period of time. I have never heard this argument before as it would change a whole lot of what most people understand of the bible.
I have a hard time to believe that so many smart bible translators all missed the boat but they seem to give a pretty good defense of finite.
Anyone know more about aion or aionios.
Here is the page that uses the argument.
http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/eternal.htm
_____________________________
1Co 10:13 No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others.9 And God is faithful: He10 will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear,11 but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/1/2008 11:37:23 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rrtt11
I found several websites claiming that "forever and ever" in the bible are not the correct translation of aion or aionios but that they always refer to a finite period of time. I have never heard this argument before as it would change a whole lot of what most people understand of the bible.
I have a hard time to believe that so many smart bible translators all missed the boat but they seem to give a pretty good defense of finite.
Anyone know more about aion or aionios.
Here is the page that uses the argument.
http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/eternal.htm
You are wise to have doubts when every bible translator disagrees with the proposition being put forth by someone with a "unique" point of view. This should always sound the alarm bells!
It is easier for me to address the Hebrew section of this article, because it is that to which I am most familiar. The article does begin with a grain of truth, but pushes far beyond anything that the evidence would allow in order to come to its conclusions. To begin with, Hebrew words generally have a far broader semantic range than do the equivalent English words. It is not uncommon for a single Hebrew word to be translated by many different English words depending on the context and construction, and 'olam' is no exception to that rule. For example the same Hebrew root means 'to eat', 'to feed', 'to digest', 'to devour', 'to burn', 'to consume', etc... The determination of the meaning can only be made by looking at the context and construction of the word as it is used in a sentence.
The following excerpts from the article demonstrate some places where the author stretches the evidence beyond reason:
quote:
As mentioned by Hanson, the Greek word aion is the equivalent of the Hebrew word 'olam. This word, or a variation of it, appears 439 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. 'Olam is a form of the root word 'alam, which literally means "to hide." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) says this about 'olam:
Probably derived from 'alam I, "to hide," thus pointing to what is hidden in the distant future or the distant past. . . . The LXX generally translates 'olam by aion which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever." Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period . . . (pp. 672, 673, vol. II)
First, note that although the quoted article indicates that it is the belief of quoted author that 'olam' probably is derived from 'alam'; the article itself states this as an undisputed fact. i.e. that 'olam' is derived from 'alam'; the quoted author didn't make this assertion because he recognized that this is something that is heavily disputed and not conclusive. Here is what NIDOTTE says about 'olam': "Derivation is uncertain. The nom. is often derived from the root 'עלם' I, hidden, so that the basic meaning of the nom. would be an "obscure time." But if the root were 'עלם', the base form of the nom., as suggest by the Aram. cognate 'alam'. would be qatal. This form is unattested as a nom. base in a Sem. language. Consequently, it has been suggested that the -am ending of the nom. is an adverbial ending and not part of the root. On this basis, suggested roots include 'ועל' (cf. Eth. wa'alu, tarry) or 'עלל', cognate witht e Akk.. ullu, ascend (see further Jenni, 199-202)"
Second, while it is true that the LXX translates 'olam' as 'aion' this give far more support to the idea that the generally accepted understanding of the Hebrew 'olam' is represented in the Greek 'aion' than it does to the idea that 'olam' as well as 'aion' have both been misunderstood by most scholars. Again from NIDOTTE it says, "ANE (Ancient Near East) The nom. is widely attested. Ugar. 'עלם', long time, perpetuity, is used in many of the same constructions as in the Heb. (e.g. 'עד', 'עלם', 'לעלם', forever; cf., eg., KTU 1.2, IV, 10; 1.4, IV, 42; 4.360, 2). In Moab. and Phoen., 'עלם', perpetuity, is used in various constructions. It appears in several Aram. dialects; Old aram., BA, Syr., Nab., Pal., 'alma' eternity, age world, Eth. 'alam', world, age, eternity."
In a nutshell, some of the best scholarship on this topic was completely ignored because it contradicted the position put forth by this author. By contrast, the NIDOTTE presents evidence for all usages of 'olam', both those supporting this authors perspective and those that contradict his position. When you see a position presented that ignores well known and relevant research that should server as a strong warning of bias so strong that it has blinded the author.
quote:
A good example of determining the meaning of 'olam by context is found in Jonah 2:6. This Scripture shows that 'olam sometimes indicates a period of time with both a known beginning and an end:
JONAH 2:6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its bars closed behind me forever [le'olam]; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD, my God. (NKJV)
Jonah, speaking of his time in the belly of the great fish, states that it lasted "forever" (Heb. le'olam). However, we know from the Scriptures that his ordeal actually lasted for only three days and three nights (Jon. 1:17; Matt. 12:40). Jonah's case is important in understanding the true meaning of 'olam. Shut away in complete darkness inside the great fish, Jonah would have had no means of judging the passing of time.
From the context it is clear that Jonah was making a conditional reference to Eternity i.e. the idea communicated is that "if the Lord had not rescued me, I would have been trapped for eternity", and additionally this is from a poetic passage where hyperbole is expected. To use this passage to support the idea that 'olam' doesn't mean eternity is simply dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 11:07:59 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Him4all
benelchi,
quote:
You are wise to have doubts when every bible translator disagrees with the proposition being put forth by someone with a "unique" point of view. This should always sound the alarm bells!
"Every bible translator"??? Aren't you to be 'doubted' with such a 'slightly misleading' statement? 
rrtt11,
Be prepared to come against opposition equal to that of Martin Luther when you start looking into this subject. This is a subject I've studied for 35 years (before computers  ). I even have one original book written by 'Thayer' that is over a hundred years old which deals with the 'limited duration' point of view. And you're right, a lot of 'orthodoxy's' fear rides on this 'eternal' definition of the word 'aionios'. One translation that does not translate the word aionios as 'eternal', is the Young's Literal Translation. This author also wrote Young's Concordance to the bible. So it is, without doubt, written by someone better aquainted with the original languages than most of us here...I suspect.  But you are dealing with a theological 'hot potato'...so just be forewarned.
DR
I should have said that every bible translator of our generally accepted translations, and for the record I believe that would include Young (unless there is something you know about his theology that I don't). His translation attempts render the biblical language as absolutely literal as possible, and this often comes at the expense of being misunderstood. Most biblical scholars recognize the possible understanding of 'aion' or the Hebrew 'olam' in the sense of a finite duration (this was the grain of truth I mentioned), but they also recognize that these terms can be used to represent an infinite duration i.e. eternity, and it is the rejection of that possibility that is not accepted by most scholars. In other words, most scholars believe these words have a much broader semantic range than do the few who argue for the idea that the concept of eternity can not be captured by these words. I also have some of Thayer's works on my bookshelf, and while he does acknowledge (as do most scholars) that 'aion' can mean a finite duration, he also readily accepts the idea that it often does represent the infinite. It is not the acceptance of the prior that causes concern, but the rejection of the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 12:10:55 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
I looked up what Young did with a few passages. Apparently God is eternal, but his arms are only age-during:
Deuteronomy 33:27 A habitation is the eternal God, And beneath are arms age-during.
Yet his power, which those arms represent, is also eternal
Romans 1:20 for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead—to their being inexcusable;
Elsewhere God himself is only age-during
Romans 16:26 according to a command of the age-during God,
Wouldn't a simple, unbiased reading of these passages come to the conclusion that olam and aion in these passages means the same as the words Young was willing to translate as eternal?
His bias results in the bonds of hell being everlasting, but the fire only age-during. How does that work?
Jude 6-7 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept, 7as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before—an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 12:30:20 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
His bias results in the bonds of hell being everlasting, but the fire only age-during. How does that work?
I don't think it really reflects his "bias"; I think the issue is that he understands those terms from a Greek and Hebrew perspective and has intentionally not interpreted those ideas in his English translation. Doing so was entirely inline with the purpose of his "literal" translation. The apparent "bias" I believe is a misunderstanding of his translation and its purpose, and not a reflection of his theology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 12:49:19 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
The Greeks believed matter and the world to be eternal, so it stands to reason that they were rather vague and ambiguous about the distinction between the “ages of the world” and actual eternity. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhardt Kittel, which goes into great detail about secular usage of Greek words, "From the days of Heraclitus (6th century BC) the philosophers made use of the term aion in discussions of the problem of time." Plato (before the time of the Septuagint) and most philosophers who followed him described aion as being outside of time, the endless today. They distinguished between chronos as the lifetime of the world and matter, and aion as the lifetime of the gods and thought. "Plato distinguishes between aion as timeless, ideal eternity in which there are no days or months or years, and chronos as the time which is created with the world as a moving image of eternity." Aion was the name of a god of eternity, whose mysteries were well-known in Alexandria, where Judaism and the Septuagint became familiar with the word.
The article you referred to is simply dishonest in its description of how the Greeks understood the word at the time of the Septuagint.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 12:55:04 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
The Greeks believed matter and the world to be eternal, so it stands to reason that they were rather vague and ambiguous about the distinction between the “ages of the world” and actual eternity. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhardt Kittel, which goes into great detail about secular usage of Greek words, "From the days of Heraclitus (6th century BC) the philosophers made use of the term aion in discussions of the problem of time." Plato (before the time of the Septuagint) and most philosophers who followed him described aion as being outside of time, the endless today. They distinguished between chronos as the lifetime of the world and matter, and aion as the lifetime of the gods and thought. "Plato distinguishes between aion as timeless, ideal eternity in which there are no days or months or years, and chronos as the time which is created with the world as a moving image of eternity." Aion was the name of a god of eternity, whose mysteries were well-known in Alexandria, where Judaism and the Septuagint became familiar with the word.
The article you referred to is simply dishonest in its description of how the Greeks understood the word at the time of the Septuagint.
I hope you are referring to the article referenced in the the original post, and not the one I referenced. The article I referenced agrees with Kittel's position.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 1:01:23 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
Yes, I meant the original post.
And I apologize for seeing bias in Young, where he may have been just trying to avoid bias. But in that case, Young can not be used as support for the claim that aion never means eternal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 1:08:14 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
Yes, I meant the original post.
Well then, I quite agree with you.
quote:
And I apologize for seeing bias in Young, where he may have been just trying to avoid bias. But in that case, Young can not be used as support for the claim that aion never means eternal.
That is my point!
I haven't read enough of Young's work to make an absolute definitive claim about what he believed, but what I have read has never made me question his theological perspective. And I do read works by other scholars that could be equally misinterpreted as supporting this view when I know that the author never intended such a misinterpretation. At this point I have absolutely no difficulty with Young's translation, just with the interpretation that some conclude from it because it is an interpretation that I don't believe was shared by Young himself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 4:40:31 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 479
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Benelchi,
quote:
I should have said that every bible translator of our generally accepted translations, and for the record I believe that would include Young (unless there is something you know about his theology that I don't). No I honestly don't. I'm simply saying he translated more consistently and correctly IMO. His personal application to doctrine is another whole aspect for sure.
quote:
His translation attempts render the biblical language as absolutely literal as possible, and this often comes at the expense of being misunderstood. Or...better understood too.
quote:
I also have some of Thayer's works on my bookshelf, and while he does acknowledge (as do most scholars) that 'aion' can mean a finite duration, he also readily accepts the idea that it often does represent the infinite.
Actually I'm being a little 'misleading' with that comment...though unintentional. My Thayer probably has a different first name than the Thayer you're speaking of, but I couldn't remember it, because the book is at home. But my Thayer had no problem with "rejecting of the latter". That's why I like him better.
BookerG,
I think you need to look a little deeper in YLT concerning those verses. The word aionios wasn't used in Romans 1:20 or in Jude 1:6. The word used in both of those verses is the Greek word AIDIOS . I personally believe this is the word that should have been used, if our definition of 'eternal', was what scripture meant. But as you can see in verse 6 of Jude, even those adios/"everlasting chains" were only on until "the judgment". And then verse 7 says that:
"Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
So if Sodom is suffering in "eternal fire" could you show me where on earth that place is? Also, if they're in "eternal fire" then what is the meaning of the following scripture
MAT 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
And what city is Jesus talking about in the above verse? It's Capernaum...the home of Jesus after being rejected at Nazarath. Food for thought I think.
Oh BTW your Deut verse is in the OT 95 times. And it was translated as "eternal" once and "everlasting" once. Other translations were: old eastward, afore, ancient, east side, foreward, past, afore, ever, aforetime...none of which are in keeping with our understanding a 'time without end' type of definition.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 7:12:13 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 91
Status: offline
|
First, I know aionios was not used in Romans 1:20. But it demonstrates that aionios and aidios can be used synonymously. Deuteronomy 33:27 was not saying God is eternal while his arm, a symbol of his power, isn’t, because Romans 1 says his power is eternal.
I know aionios wasn’t used in Jude 6, but it was used in Jude 7 to describe the same thing that was called eternal in verse 6.
Of course Sodom and Gomorrah’s fires did not burn eternally. Neither did they burn for ages. Neither translation would make any sense unless the pyros aioniou, the eternal fire, is describing not the fire on the plains that burned briefly in Abraham’s day, but the fire of hell burning today and forever, that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering (present active participle) unending punishment, the same fate as the evil angels being held in eternal bonds.
The angels are not in temporary bonds until judgment day; they are kept in eternal chains “for the purpose of (eis) judgment on the great day.” That doesn’t mean, imply, or even suggest that the chains will come off then or ever.
My own literal translation of verse 7 would read, “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them engaging in the same sexually immoral way of life as these and turning away after other flesh, lie before us as an illustration since they are suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”
As for Matthew 10:15, what it means is that there are levels of hell. Those who turned away from God in spite of having the Savior in their very presence will suffer more than the vilest sinners who didn't know any better. But they will both suffer hell forever. If judgment were simply annihilation, ceasing to exist, then I don't see how Capernaum's fate could be any worse than Sodom's. If hell will only burn until judgment day, then Capernaum's fate is less severe because it won't last as long. Edit: Actually it's not Capernaum, it's any city that rejects the disciples when they went out on their missionary journey.
< Message edited by BookerG -- 12/2/2008 7:20:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/2/2008 8:33:17 PM
|
|
|
conan
Posts: 113
Joined: 2/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
For example the same Hebrew root means 'to eat', 'to feed', 'to digest', 'to devour', 'to burn', 'to consume', etc... The determination of the meaning can only be made by looking at the context and construction of the word as it is used in a sentence.
Well said.
The very same reasoning should be applied with "aion". Why must we check our brain in at the door when "the majority of scholars" prefer "ever and ever" to the "ages and ages".
What kind of "construction" is "ever and ever". Can you really add eternity to eternity? If so how many "eternities" are there.
What does make constructive sense is to say "ages and ages". Numerous periods of duration. That I believe is what "aionion life" is ...consecutive ages with out end.
Eph 2:7
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Imagine ..just when you think you have experience the "riches" of God's grace, God will turn the page and in another age we will grow even deeper in His love and grace. I have a hard time believeing that Scripture is so overtly criptic that you have to be a scholar with hands as soft as rose pedals to make sense of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 12:16:02 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
What does make constructive sense is to say "ages and ages". Numerous periods of duration. That I believe is what "aionion life" is ...consecutive ages with out end.
An "age without end" is eternity. The proposition posed in the original article was the contention that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews and no concept of eternity. I think the evidence clearly shows that to be in error whether you want to call it an "endless age" or "Eternity" makes little difference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 7:23:58 AM
|
|
|
conan
Posts: 113
Joined: 2/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
What does make constructive sense is to say "ages and ages". Numerous periods of duration. That I believe is what "aionion life" is ...consecutive ages with out end.
An "age without end" is eternity. The proposition posed in the original article was the contention that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews and no concept of eternity. I think the evidence clearly shows that to be in error whether you want to call it an "endless age" or "Eternity" makes little difference.
Aside from the inferrence of translators/scholars can you show one context/construction that clearly demonstrates (without theological bias) that "aion" means "an age without end".
I would not argue that Hebrews or Greeks had no knowledge of eternity. However, this does not present a free pass on accurately translating "aion". That I believe is what the thread starter is asking for and I believe it is a reasonable request.
However, after years of trying, I have yet to figure out -or get an answer for what appears to be a significant misreprensentation of Scripture.
sincerely
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 9:47:43 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: conan
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
What does make constructive sense is to say "ages and ages". Numerous periods of duration. That I believe is what "aionion life" is ...consecutive ages with out end.
An "age without end" is eternity. The proposition posed in the original article was the contention that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews and no concept of eternity. I think the evidence clearly shows that to be in error whether you want to call it an "endless age" or "Eternity" makes little difference.
Aside from the inferrence of translators/scholars can you show one context/construction that clearly demonstrates (without theological bias) that "aion" means "an age without end".
"Aside from the inference of translators/scholars" is a statement that already reflects a strong bias against the opinions of scholars and translators who understand these terms differently than you do. Considering that the Greek scholars who understand these words quite differently than you do, have spent their life studying the Ancient Greek, I give a lot of weight to their opinion. That being said, From Ps. 116 and Ps. 117 of the LXX the phrase traditionally translated as "His Love endures forever" is example of a phrase where an understanding of 'aion' as a finite amount of time is difficult to support. "His Love endures to the end of this age" simply does not make sense. Additionally, references in the Mishnah and the DSS scrolls where 'olam' is used as 'forever' make it difficult to dismiss the idea of 'olam' or 'aion' should never be interpreted with the idea of 'forever' (olam is almost always translated using a form of aion in Greek)
quote:
I would not argue that Hebrews or Greeks had no knowledge of eternity. However, this does not present a free pass on accurately translating "aion". That I believe is what the thread starter is asking for and I believe it is a reasonable request.
But that is exactly what must be argued in order to conclude that 'aion' NEVER means 'forever'. The Hebrews used the terms 'ad' and 'olom' exclusively to convey the concept of 'forever', and the LXX translates these terms exclusively as 'aion'. In order to acknowledge that the Hebrew people understood a concept of "eternity", you must either accept that the concept of eternity is conveyed in the word 'aion' or you must explain why the translators of the LXX made such a serious mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 10:39:08 AM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 479
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
BookerG,
I disagree with your explanation of those verses but I really don't feel like defending the point. I appreciate the lattitude of moderator's acceptance here at Crosswalk, but also know that the envelope can be pushed. So I'll just respond to another comment you made. Kind of a petty one too...I admit.
quote:
Actually it's not Capernaum, it's any city that rejects the disciples when they went out on their missionary journey. Actually it IS capernaum according to my bible.
MAT 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
It obviously IS Capernaum, as you can see. And it ISN'T the cities that the disciples preached in it was the cities that Jesus did mighty miracles in (Matt 11:20).
benelchi,
quote:
"Aside from the inference of translators/scholars"
Do you not see that 'that' is a very great part of the problem. Translators inference is mightily affected by their own prior indoctrination (and attending peer pressure). An inference/indoctrination that they probably grew up with. That's why I think some translators actually were pursuing a 'more pure truth' to interpret scripture in a way that seems to cast a shadow on the traditional thinking/doctrines of their time.
quote:
"His Love endures to the end of this age" simply does not make sense. I agree, that's why the translation of 'age abiding' as in YLT, Rotherhams ect make so much sense to me. God's love is age abiding...no matter what age you're in.
BTW I looked up my Thayer's name last night and it was Thomas. And the book was written in 1855. Several years ago, I tried briefly to determine if he might have even been a brother of the Joseph Thayer you/I have. I could only conclude that they were contemporaries.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 11:07:13 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Him4all
benelchi,
quote:
"Aside from the inference of translators/scholars"
Do you not see that 'that' is a very great part of the problem. Translators inference is mightily affected by their own prior indoctrination (and attending peer pressure). An inference/indoctrination that they probably grew up with. That's why I think some translators actually were pursuing a 'more pure truth' to interpret scripture in a way that seems to cast a shadow on the traditional thinking/doctrines of their time.
Actually, I don't see that as part of the problem. The reality is that everyone must interpret these terms regardless of the position they hold, so the question is about whether their inference is supported by the evidence, and not about whether they inferred something or not. The translators and scholars are no more guilty of making an inference about the meaning of 'aion' than are those who reject their translation.
quote:
quote:
"His Love endures to the end of this age" simply does not make sense. I agree, that's why the translation of 'age abiding' as in YLT, Rotherhams ect make so much sense to me. God's love is age abiding...no matter what age you're in.
However, that in and of itself is highly interpretive, and requires the addition of vocabulary not found in the original texts to allow for the idea of eternity to be conveyed. The fact that the Hebrew author and Greek translator saw no need to add this supporting vocabulary argues strongly against the idea that these words never conveyed a sense of eternity.
quote:
BTW I looked up my Thayer's name last night and it was Thomas. And the book was written in 1855. Several years ago, I tried briefly to determine if he might have even been a brother of the Joseph Thayer you/I have. I could only conclude that they were contemporaries.
DR
My guess would be that they were related (it would be too much of a coincidence otherwise), but I am unfamiliar with the other Thayer. However, from what you have said, they seem to be as different as the Swindoll brothers in regard to their theology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 12:07:05 PM
|
|
|
rrtt11
Posts: 67
Joined: 6/7/2005
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
|
I didn't realize I would start such a scholarly debate but enjoyed reading the posts. Reading other articles of this guy shows me he is way out on a limb on lots of doctrinal issues. He reminds me of the king james only people in his arguments.
Thanks for the help.
_____________________________
1Co 10:13 No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others.9 And God is faithful: He10 will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear,11 but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 12:13:04 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2483
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
if I may join – i strongly support the idea that the word is referring to eternity. Translations are indeed a tricky beast..
like ,word olam is indeed often seen to be different then netzah, both words mean eternal, forever.
Misunderstading occurs when one thinks that difference is in "duration" when in fact as its usually used in rabbinical literature, and modern language, olam used to reflect our understanding of eternity, to separate from God’s view of it (netzah).
Netzah has reverence ,triumph and glory in it, which belongs to God only.
Not that our eternity is shorter or smaller – but our ability to fully understand the concepts that are beyond us indeed is.
In english its harder to express.
For example , We can say to a spouse "I will love you l’olam"
or "I will love you l’netzah" in English it would translate as the same word , but to give it a definition,
first would be "I will love you all the time I know and can imagine" and second "all the time God knows and has created"
In some cases the word olam can be used to mean eternity limited by boundaries of this earthly world, or "eternity" as mother-in-law visit appears to be, but this is why, all due respect to OP link authors , theological views ought not to be formed based on dictionary meanings alone
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 1:07:11 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3665
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
if I may join – i strongly support the idea that the word is referring to eternity. Translations are indeed a tricky beast..
like ,word olam is indeed often seen to be different then netzah, both words mean eternal, forever.
Misunderstading occurs when one thinks that difference is in "duration" when in fact as its usually used in rabbinical literature, and modern language, olam used to reflect our understanding of eternity, to separate from God’s view of it (netzah).
Netzah has reverence ,triumph and glory in it, which belongs to God only.
Not that our eternity is shorter or smaller – but our ability to fully understand the concepts that are beyond us indeed is.
In english its harder to express.
For example , We can say to a spouse "I will love you l’olam"
or "I will love you l’netzah" in English it would translate as the same word , but to give it a definition,
first would be "I will love you all the time I know and can imagine" and second "all the time God knows and has created"
In some cases the word olam can be used to mean eternity limited by boundaries of this earthly world, or "eternity" as mother-in-law visit appears to be, but this is why, all due respect to OP link authors , theological views ought not to be formed based on dictionary meanings alone
I appreciate your perspective (as a native speaker); I have never thought about נצח conveying the idea of eternity before, and I was even more confused when I thought you meant נצה; I usually use a 'ch' to represent a 'chaph' or 'chet' when I transliterate; the 'h' always makes me think 'hey'.
Great post!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Aion or Aionios??? - 12/3/2008 1:56:00 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 479
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
benelchi,
quote:
Actually, I don't see that as part of the problem. The reality is that everyone must interpret these terms regardless of the position they hold, I agree they should, but I don't agree that they do. That's why we had the 'denominational' twisting of the OT manuscripts by the Eloist, Masoretic, Priestly, Jahwehist/Deuteronomist scribes. Each recopied the original manuscripts to favor their particular 'denominational view'. Today my understanding is that most ascribe greater credibility to the Masoretic text...woud you agree?
quote:
The translators and scholars are no more guilty of making an inference about the meaning of 'aion' than are those who reject their translation. I agree, and that's why this is still an ongoing debateable subject. There are linguistic 'experts' supportive of both views. Which is why I lean toward 'being led of the Spirit of God' for my rest as to the view I'm comfortable with. If you feel the Spirit has led you otherwise, then we'll just have to wait to see who is right. But hopefully the hand of fellowship isn't based upon agreements not pertinent to our mutual 'relationship' with God.
quote:
The fact that the Hebrew author and Greek translator saw no need to add this supporting vocabulary argues strongly against the idea that these words never conveyed a sense of eternity.
"Argues strongly"?...Yes, but 'conclusively'...No! In my opinion anyway.
It's good to know there are those here with understanding of the Greek/Hebrew. So I would like to ask you both a question concerning the Hebrew. In Genesis 1:26 when scripture says we were made in "our image and after our likeness" what is the source of the word "after"? Is it added? Is it truly a 'past tense' description of 'man' or is it a 'future tense'. Adam and Eve obviously weren't 'like' God...or they wouldn't have sinned in the first place. And the very temptation of the devil to them was "you will be like God knowing good and evil". That sounds like a good thing...'to be like God and to 'recognize/see' that difference'.
I don't want to sidetrack this thread, so if you feel you're violating something in answering here, please PM me, if you would. I'd really like some 'schollarly' imput.
DR
_____________________________
When you violate LOVE you violate GOD.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
